Congressman John Katko (R-NY-24) wrote to President Biden suggesting boycotting the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing. Senator Mitt Romney (R-Utah) opposed athletes boycotting but not other form of boycotting Olympics. This prompted me to write this column, Apply Olympic Spirit to Global Competition and International Relations.
 
“What does the USA want from China and what does China want from the U.S. when they talked in Alaska (March 18-19, 2021)?” was posted on Quora. It received many responses, but not many specific answers. Understandably it is a tough question to answer, even for seasoned international relations experts. Nations usually discloses, through white papers, regarding general national security issues, defense concerns, and national development plan but rarely identifies specific demands on specific nation. The specifics are national secrets, highly variable as strategic situation varies in real time. Therefore, the answer to the above question depends intimately on the events happened prior to the meeting, including the history of the US-China relations up to the new Biden Administration’s tentative ‘China Strategy’, still experimental and evolving to be a firm ‘China Policy’. From this angle, a foreign affairs observer could only speculate an answer to the above question based on known facts and his logical interpretation. Hopefully such an exercise may shed some light on how the two great nations may repair and improve their competitive relations.
 
The U.S. (Secretary of State, Antony Blinken and WH National Security Adviser, Jack Sullivan) invited China (Yang Jiechi, Central Committee/ Foreign Affairs and Wang Yi, National Affairs Adviser/Foreign Minister) to have a high level 2+2 meeting at Anchorage following two similar 2+2 meetings held in Tokyo (U.S. and Japan) and in Soul (U.S. and South Korea). The purpose and significance of these two meetings were revealed as U.S. attempt to solidify a ‘Quad’ alliance (US-Australia-Japan-S. Korea or quad+ including India, Vietnam and others) targeting at suppressing China’s rise. These meetings were first step to assess the likelihood of building the ‘Alliance’ model to confront China.
 
Judging from the Pre-meeting announcement, events happened at Anchorage and post 2+2 press conferences, we may deduce an answer for ‘What the U.S. wanted from China at the Anchorage meeting’ as follows:
I. China’s concession on trade issues.
II. China’s pledge in slowing down development including China’s agreement on stopping technology challenge (competition such as 5G, etc.).
III. Pushing China’s red-lines in SCS, ECS and the Taiwan Strait.
IV. Reaching a currency policy agreement with China to avoid a currency war.
On the question, ‘What China wanted from the U.S. at the Anchorage meeting?’, we may deduce the following answer:
I. Renewing a cordial dialogue which was destroyed by the Trump Administration.
II. Stopping smearing and rhetoric against China.
III. Expressing each other’s main concerns and red-lines.
IV. Defining method and schedule for broad communication channels between the two nations.
 
China came to Anchorage with low expectation but sincere hope to return the U.S.-China relation to a normal state rather than enduring a hostile ‘blame game’ or a Cold War. However, the other 2+2 meetings especially the Tokyo one raised a big red flag. Japan touched China’s sovereignty issue with Japan's ambitious claim of the Diaoyu Islands (Senkaku). The U.S. had long been neutral on this touchy issue but this time she said that the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty would apply to those islands. In addition, the day before the Anchorage meeting, the U.S. announced sanctions against a few Hong Kong (HK) officials for their role in maintaining law and order during HK riots, a slap on the 2+2 guests' faces.
 
The last straw breaking the camel’s back was Blinken and Sullivan’s opening remarks, sparing any pleasantry and openly charging China violating human rights, using Xinjiang, HK, Tibet and Taiwan in a vicious manner with no concrete evidence. This not only angered the Chinese delegates but totally negated what China had hoped to achieve at this meeting. Consequently, China unprecedentedly lashed out sharp counter attacks (righteously saying the U.S. has no right to lecture China) against the U.S. with US Human Rights violations and double standards. Obviously, this surprised Blinken and Sullivan; their ‘overtime’ response and manipulation of the presence of media gave the Chinese delegation further ammunition charging the U.S. violating democracy and freedom of speech.
 
The closed- door sessions later might have calmed the dialogue down judging from the mild press statements at the end. China explicitly denied the US condescending manner thus no concrete positive agreement was no surprise. As a US citizen-observer of foreign affairs, relying less on ‘inside’ information but more ‘historical’ data and pure common ‘justice’ sense, I would say that the U.S. erred in poking those decade/century old red-line issues  Tibet was a seven-decade charge led by the West; each decade past, Tibetans’ lives got better. Only the cult-like monks lost their political power. The U.S. is barking uselessly as China has successfully lifted poverty in Tibet making its neighbors in India envious. Xinjiang HR issue was hyped by former SOS Pompeo using ‘possibly’ CIA stories to pin horrible charges like “concentration camp” and “genocide” on China. The fact that the Uighur population grew 25% (vs 2% for the Han),  the Xinjiang cotton industry became the top cotton producer in the world in two decades and China maintained a good relation with most Muslim countries simply blew the fabricated story (such as one admitted by BBC) out of the water.
 
HK is another ridiculous issue that the U.S. and the U.K. shamelessly lecture on a moral pedestal. Legally HK belongs to China after its return to China in 1997. HK people from having zero political rights to having the most autonomous local government in the world, except military defense, she even has control of her currency. When HK riots happened and threatened her security, China did not sent troops to suppress but simply legislated national security laws to manage the riots successfully. No country had managed riots better than HK, including the U.S. dealing with her Wall Street and Capitol riots.
 
Taiwan is another seven decade issue, rightly classified as China’s domestic problem. Why must the U.S., a giant nation and superpower, use alliance, particularly Taiwan, a small island, to deal with China’s rising competitive power?  The U.S. strategists thought they could use Taiwan to pressure China, but what really happened was that the pro-independence political faction in Taiwan was manipulating the U.S. government for the benefit of power-hunger Taiwanese politicians. They lobbied and bribed foreign politicians to support their cause (some got caught). Strangely, the U.S. would play along with Taiwan’s ‘diplomacy rescue’ game (desperately trying to hold on the 15 small countries' wavering diplomatic relation with Taiwan) by sneaking an US ambassador to Palau in Palau President's travel team to visit Taiwan. Does the U.S. really believe that to provoke China to use force to unite Taiwan is the solution to stopping the U.S. decline on the world stage?
 
What are the above events telling us Americans? Any patriotic American can see that, the U.S. seems to be losing her marbles; she is losing prestige and respect world wide. We raise the big flags of Democracy, Freedom and HR; they actually cover our shadows so we can shout slogans and doing the opposite at the same time. What we Americans should do is standing in front of a big flag of Justice; honoring justice is righteously preaching: 'do what we say and do' not 'do what we say but don’t do what we do'. Hypocrisy and double standards are not on the flag of Justice.
 
Boycotting Olympics to be held in China is a cowardly idea, Americans have performed very well in Olympics and Americans can compete and win gold medals. In fact, we should all treasure the real spirit of Olympics: Everyone competes honorably and fairly obeying rules defined by all participating nations. We should cooperate in training and development so that we all improve in our ability and performance. When we compete, we produce winners, Champions and runner ups. Competitions raise everyone’s performance level, not just the winner's. If we are champions we should try to defend them by working and training harder, if we lost, we would try again next turn and win back our titles. That is the Olympic spirit. That spirit should be applied to global competition and international relations.
 
 

 
The State Department of the U.S. (DOS) is far more complex than a foreign ministry of any country. DOS is organized under the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary with six undersecretaries each has assistant secretaries and directors heading specific department with designated responsibilities. There are a total of 23 Assistant Secretaries and a number of Directors, Office Managers and Ambassadors in charge of various political, economic, security, technological and financial and budgetary affairs, all staffed with a sizable organization. In addition, there are ten direct reports to the Secretary consisting of two Assistant Secretaries, one Director, three Ambassadors, Ambassador at large, Inspector General, Legislative Affairs and Legal Adviser. During the Trump Administration, there was some effort of streamlining DOS, but the current DOS organization chart is still a mammoth as outlined above.
 
To the casual observers, DOS functions under two ‘tracks’, one may be called professional diplomatic career track and the other political appointee track. Under the U.S. partisan democracy, the presidency may be rotated between two parties by the will of the citizen-voters, that is shifting from Republican to Democrat or vice versa. Therefore, the appointed leadership positions in DOS are typically partisan serving at the pleasure of the President. The career diplomats in the department would generally stay politically neutral and focus on specific assignment of duties. Such an ideal situation is hard to maintain since each individual does have his or her own political view, thus, the political appointments at DOS after each new Presidency elected from an opposing party to the previous administration will make a big upheaval in the department from the top down. Generally, the public only pay attention to the top positions such as the Secretary, Deputy, Assistant Secretaries and Ambassadors that need to be scrutinized by the media and confirmed by the Congress, that itself is not a small deed for the Administration.
 
All ambassadors must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. This system strengthens the power of the President and enables the President to conduct inter-national affairs with ease. Under this notion, ambassadorships are often treated as a form of political patronage to reward high-profile or important supporters of the president with like ideology and party affiliation as the President. For continuity, most ambassadorships are still assigned to career diplomats, who are the Foreign Service Officers. Typically, a new President will appoint about 30% of the total ambassador positions during his initial term, that is about 35-45 Ambassadors. However, President Trump has diligently made appointments for 44% of all the ambassadorship in his term. This naturally adds more workload on Biden’s administration to select ambassador appointees. There is no shortage of people interested in serving as a prestigious U.S. Ambassador even at a financial loss (The salary of ambassador at $150,000 a year can hardly support an ambassador’s social expense). However, as the international relations are getting very complex with a rising China taking some of the limelight of the world arena, the diplomatic services have become harder work and more critical for the U.S.
 
As China becoming the world’s number two economic power, the U.S.-China relations has become contentious to the point that the U.S. had declared China as her most serious competitor. China had maintained a healthy economic growth over several decades with trade relations expanding with nearly all countries in the world. As expected, China’s diplomatic relations have improved with not only many developing countries but also strengthened with nations participated in her Bridge and Road Initiative (BRI). Diplomacy functions better with stronger economic strength or rich purse, therefore, China has been able to exert her weight on global issues which have made the U.S. especially the DOS uneasy.
 
No question about it, at the moment the most important foreign relationship is the U.S.-China relationship. Biden and his team apparently have chosen to continue the combative China policy accentuated by the previous Administration with perhaps a twist: ‘strengthening the diplomatic approach towards international affairs’. So the functions of DOS and U.S. ambassadors have to be sharpened. This is the fundamental reason that Biden is careful and taking time to name his ambassador appointments. For example, nearly a month ago there were news reports about the U.S. and China will name new ambassadors to each other. The present Chinese Ambassador to the U.S. , Cui Tiankai, is 69 years old and has served the ambassadorship through Obama, Trump and Biden. It is understandable that he may be retiring and a younger diplomat, Qin Gang (55), a seasoned career diplomat (Ambassador, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, Director of the Office of Protocol, Deputy Foreign Minister under the capable and charismatic Minister Wang Yi) is reported to be Ambassador Cui's possible replacement. At the same time, Nicholas Burns (66, career diplomat, Professor at John F Kennedy School at Harvard ), a friend of Biden, was reported to be the possible next ambassador to China. However, a month already passed neither of the above news was confirmed.
 
Granted Biden was pre-occupied with COVID in his first 100 days in office, but the U.S.-China relation was Biden-Blinken’s primary focus of foreign affairs. Currently, Charg'e d’Affairs Robert W. Forden is leading the U. S. Mission to China since October 5, 2020, following the departure of former Ambassador Terry Edward Branstad appointed by President Trump. Biden-Blinken had initiated a ‘Quad+’ China policy, attempting to ally Japan, South Korea, Australia and possibly India to check the rise of China in commerce, trade, technology and military. (Human Rights was mainly a rhetoric issue, judging on China's effort in lifting her citizens' standard of living) However, Quad may be the second reason that assigning ambassadors have becoming a laboring task. Again, news reports have mentioned the possible appointments of Ralm Emanuel (61, Mayor of Chicago, former Chief of Staff for Obama) as ambassador to Japan and Eric Garcetti (50, Mayor of Los Angeles) as ambassador to India but with no confirmation in sight. In the meantime, the U.S. Ambassador to South Korea is vacant with Rob Rapson appointed as Charg'e d’Affairs ad interim on Jan. 20, 2021 and Ambassador to Australia was held by Arthur B. Culvahouse, JR. (appointed by Trump since Mar. 13, 2019) till Jan. 19,2021. Obviously, Biden needs to put together a new team to make sure ‘Quad+’ is effective. These considerations must trump the conventional appointments rewarding president’s supporters.
 
The third reason for making US ambassador assignments a labor is probably subtle and not obvious to the public. This has to do with the falling of the U.S. reputation on the world stage according to public opinion surveys. The Biden Administration knows it and must conscientiously make an effort to correct that. Obviously, ambassadors and foreign services have to make extra effort in order to restore the prestige the U.S. used to enjoy when the U.S. can spend the money to get her wills. Today, China is a formidable competitor with a strong economy, a large sum of foreign currency reserve and an effective government whether you like it or not. The U.S. must do a serious reform on DOS and its practices. Credit to Trump was his recognition of a bloated DOS having too much on its plate to be done well. Of course, Trump did not have an effective team to revamp DOS, a change of Secretary for DOS after one year (Rex Tillerson, 2-1-2017 to 3-31-2018, John J. Sullivan, 4-1-2018 to 4-26-2018, and Mike Pompeo, 4-26-2018 to 1-20-2021) speaks well for a failed reform. Whether Blinken can do differently remains to be seen. In particular, whether the ‘Quad+’ policy is built on a sound assumption is very much a DOS debatable topic. There is a camp at DOS favoring a more cooperative relationship with China.
​
For the above three reasons, we can appreciate that assigning ambassadors seems to be a tough labor for the Biden Administration.


​

Abstract

China has nearly 5000 years of history. The U.S. is less than 250 years old. The U.S.-China relationship has evolved from no-contact to rivalry states in the last two century. How did this happen? This paper traces the evolution of the U.S.-China relationship from a long time ago to eighteenth to nineteenth century, WW I period, WW II Period, and post WW II to current century (in four parts) in order to understand how and why the two great nations have become rivals and whether they are calculated rivals?!   
 
________________________________________________________________________________

 
The CCP initially followed the Soviet communist party, but quickly realized it would make China a poor colony. (Mao foresaw the Eastern Europe consequences) China’s resistance to the Soviet Union and struggling under sanctions from the West gave her a hard time for two to three decades, but the time had strengthened China, making her relying on herself and working extremely hard to achieve goals. It all sounds simple to have five year development plans, but it is not simple to achieve all the goals written in a plan, plan after plan for several decades. Lately, China is more self-confident thus willing to publish her detailed development plans. It is surprising that the West is so surprised by her accomplishments in the last three decades, economically, technologically and militarily all under their watchful eyes worldwide. Not enough usable land for farming, China converts desert to forests and farms and develops salt (sea) water rice crops. Barred from international Space Research, China developed her own missiles, satellites, geo-positioning technologies (Beidou system), and successfully deployed their lunar exploration programs. China recognized her deficiencies in infrastructure and transportation, she now had built the world-envied hi-speed rail network, highways and bridges and first rate international airports. If we can not deduce from these transformation and accomplishments the DNA of CCP, which is responsible for China's success, we are really blind. If anyone still says China stole all their accomplishments from the West, they are not only is blind but also ignorant. If Pompeo believes that we should be against the CCP not the Chinese people, he is naive or being brainwashed by a few anti-China Chinese dissenters. Billions of Chinese are now proud of CCP and its DNA. The more the West media attacks the CCP, the better it transforms. Transforming for better is the secret of CCP's success. No wonder, the Chinese netizens call the prominent foreign China-bashers as China's patriotic builders.
 
Are China and the U.S. Calculated Rivals?
 
The reason this article reviews the U.S.-China relation back to a long time ago is to answer this million dollar question. Based on historical facts, one may say that the U.S. did not treat China as a rivalry purposely perhaps until 21st century. The U.S. participated in the colonial aggression against China and developed an impression of weak China which may still influence many Americans today. It was understandable that the U.S. had a calculated strategy towards the Soviet Union based on the way the Soviet expanded communism around the world posing a threat to the U.S. (President John F. Kennedy's acute reaction to Russia's Cuban Missile site is a clear manifestation of the U.S. concern) But it would be a stretch to say that the U.S. had a calculated strategy treating China as a rivalry in the 19th and 20th century. In fact, the U.S. has always been ambiguous on her China policy especially regarding her taking advantage of the ‘two-China situation' developed after 1949. The U.S. was preoccupied by her Soviet policy thus only treating China as an appendix to the Soviet problem rather than having a calculated strategy aiming at China as a rivalry. Recognizing China and welcoming China into the West world for the purpose of sanctioning the Soviet economy have guided the U.S. China policy and perhaps expected China to become like Japan and Korea someday with significant dependency on the U.S. economy. This thinking may have prevailed even a decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
 
When the Soviet collapsed and the U.S. became the only superpower in the world, China was no longer a tool for rivaling the Soviet, but she had not been elevated to a rivalry level at that time. It was the year 1999 or the turn of the 21st century when China became the world’s number two economy, China had attracted the U.S. attention, unintentionally since China had always taken a low-key attitude. However, the Bush era (2001-2008) was too preoccupied with terrorism and Middle East issues, it was not until the Obama Administration, China’s rapid rise was noted as a potential threat to the U.S. economy and her life style. However, Obama had only made his first trip to China in 2009, a late start in dealing with a complex relation with China. Human rights issue and globalization operational rules were Obama’s main concerns. China had made drastic improvements in both arenas by lifting poverty and improving trade relations with the bulk of the world. Obama also had to deal with the impact of the financial crisis of 2008 which thanks to China was weathered through with China’s reserve funds. If there was a calculated strategy dealing with China, it was only visible through the Pivot to Asia which had made it clear that the U.S. would place more attention to Asia targeting China. However, Obama announced the Pivot to Asia in a trip to Australia in 2011 which may be a clue that the policy was yet to be firmed up then.
 
The surprise came in 2016 when Hillary Clinton lost the presidency bid to Donald Trump, otherwise, Clinton would probably follow a calculated strategy towards China. In terms of national security, continuity in strategy and orderly modification are very much desired. However, the American system with changing Commander-in-Chief every eight years or shorter makes the execution of a long-term strategy not so predictable, sometimes with interruptions. When Trump took over the White House, although he appointed more hawkish anti-China staff but they seem to have interrupted an original strategic plan if there was one. If not, they had made their own playbook which surprised China, American elites and citizens as well as U.S. allies. The trade war might be a part of long-term strategy but Trump's execution was full of surprises to U.S. allies and to China. The lack of patience had accelerated the trade war to a technology war impacting not only commerce and military but also on stock markets, such as initial offering and stock listing, the heart of finance. The tactic steps were too numerous, too rapid and too impulsive without calculating out consequences. Some tariffs spilled over to allies, 5G technology sanction put some industries and allies at great financial risk and the reversals on black list and the reversal of a stock exchange's de-list, relist and re-delist again all suggested that the targeting China actions were not following a calculated plan, even there was a calculated strategy.
 
(to be continued in part IVb)